FOI Request
I write to request information and records under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) regarding the use of facial recognition technology.
I write following inspection of the Police and Crime Plan Draft, which states on slide 12 referring to a “bid for exploratory funding to trial facial recognition software”
- What is the application process for this exploratory funding?
- What is the scheme or programme under which this exploratory funding has been or will be granted? Is it part of a wider Government fund allocation scheme, or specified Government programme? If so, what are the stated objectives of this scheme or programme? Please provide details
- To your knowledge, which body (or bodies) have been granted this explotory funding?
- What was the total amount of funding available?
- Has the PCC been successful in it’s bid for funding?
a. Please provide a copy of your funding application
If yes:
b. Have you begun to use the funds to implement the use of facial recognition technology?
If yes:
i. How have these funds been used thus far?
ii. How are any remaining funds expected to be used?
FOI Response
In response to your first question.
- What is the application process for this exploratory funding?
The Police Science, Technology, Analysis and Research (STAR) Board were seeking applications from UK Police Forces for funding in respect of innovative and forward-looking projects that enhance policing through science, technology, analysis and/or research.
The application process involved a bidding process whereby forces were required to submit a bid in respect of the available funding that works around the Home Office’s prospectus which includes 5 priorities.
In response to your second question,
2. What is the scheme or programme under which this exploratory funding has been or will be granted? Is it part of a wider Government fund allocation scheme, or specified Government programme? If so, what are the stated objectives of this scheme or programme? Please provide details
The funding is part of The Police Science, Technology, Analysis and Research (STAR) Board which is ran by the Home Office. The stated objectives of this which are produced by the Home Office are stated below.
Priority A: Combatting Violence, Abuse, and Intimidation against Women and Girls (VAWG)
We encourage bids that support police efforts to better understand and/or combat VAIWG. For example, bids that identify what works in encouraging VAIWG victims to report to police and/or remain engaged for the duration of investigation and court proceedings.
Priority B: Combatting Serious Violence, including knife crime and homicide.
We encourage bids that offer innovative ways to combat serious crime at the local, regional or national level. For example, bids that develop early intervention levers within communities, and bids that improve response to violence crimes when they happen.
Priority C: Enforcement of drug related offences and improved detection of drugs.
We encourage bids that seek to improve the ability of policing to detect, enforce and combat drug related offences. For example, bids that develop novel ways for police and safeguarding organisations to identify and deliver effective interventions against County Lines related offending.
Priority D: Enhancing frontline policing through innovative use and exploitation of science, technology, analysis, or research.
We encourage bids that support the development of frontline policing. For example, bids that provide evidence-based policies for policing public order events, or bids that develop or support police efforts to use data in effective and proportionate ways.
Priority E: Prevention of crime, with a particular interest in holistic approaches, demand management and addressing the root causes of crime and criminality.
We encourage bids that consider prevention of crime both in relation to Priorities A-D and in other areas of policing. For example, bids that develop methods of raising public awareness and, in so doing, promoting public resilience to crime.
In response to your third question,
3. To your knowledge, which body (or bodies) have been granted eplotory funding?
I can confirm that the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cleveland does not hold this information.
In response to your fourth question,
4. What was the total amount of funding available?
A total of up to £4.8m from the 2021/22 Police Settlement Fund was available to support projects.
In response to your final question,
5. Has the PCC been successful in it’s bid for funding?
a. Please provide a copy of your funding application
If yes:
b. Have you begun to use the funds to implement the use of facial recognition technology?
If yes:
i. How have these funds been used thus far?
ii. How are any remaining funds expected to be used?
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) place two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption:
Section 31(1) a, b, c and Section 31 (2) Law Enforcement;
This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.
Section 31 is a prejudice based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.
Overall Harm
Whilst every effort should be made to release information under FOIA, on this occasion it is important to be mindful that release under FOIA is a disclosure to the world at large and not just to the individual making the request. To confirm whether or not information is held pertinent to the use of facial recognition technology could reveal changes into operational availability or unavailability within the Cleveland Police force area.
Public Interest Considerations:
Section 31 – Law Enforcement
Factors Favouring Disclosure
The release of this information would provide an insight into the Police Service and enable the public to have a better understanding of the force size and ability to respond to operational needs throughout the force area. This would in turn provide transparency in the way the Police Service carry out their day-to-day delivery of effective law enforcement.
Factors Favouring Non-Disclosure
Specific information relating to facial recognition technology could provide invaluable intelligence to the criminal fraternity which could be manipulated to hinder law enforcement capabilities of the force by providing an advantage to individuals and/or organisation wishing to commit crime. Vulnerabilities and capabilities would be highlighted and offenders intent on committing criminal behaviour could create a mosaic of data and build up a picture of vulnerability within the force boundaries.
Overall Balancing Test
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing and in this case providing assurance that any changes to the forces use or non use will not affect the ability of the force to provide the effective day to day delivery of law enforcement there is also a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of law enforcement.
Any information identifying the focus of specific policing activity, could be used to the advantage of criminal organisation. Information that undermines the operational integrity of the advantage of criminal organisation. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on law enforcement.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of law enforcement, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made at this time.
None of the above can be viewed as an inference that any information does or does not exist.